Equally you can buy 'downvote shares', which act like a short and help dampen rampant speculation. Instead of upvoting, you effectively buy shares in new content, which you can then sell at a later point for a profit if the content proves popular. I'm working on a platform that uses something similar to a prediction/stock market to incentivise people to search for high-quality content. Instead it’s far more effective to blogspam. This in turn means that there’s no platform that encourages unknown authors to create high-effort, thoughtful pieces. Great content is often missed just by chance This means that how content performs is a lottery. However, readers aren’t incentivised to sift carefully through new content, which is generally of lower quality than 'frontpage' content how well content performs is dependant on the attention it gets immediately after posting. One of the biggest issues with existing aggregators is that:

Sigh, I don't know what my point is, your comment just compelled me to share.Īn aggregator ala reddit/hackernews/twitter that uses a market mechanism to better incentivise content discovery. Meanwhile that literally-worth-2-cents-t-shirt actually happens to be a good thing, at history scale, to all the people that have not being able to clothe themselves =/ I'm just conflicted because I feel like that has to be so doesn't it? We get to pontificate about 'post consumerism' and derive meaning and such and such and such.

This machine adds ever more people up to the 'consumer' class from out of abject poverty and welp that is a good thing. Manufacturing ridiculously cheap shit at scale to where more and more people click a button and have anything they want delivered to their door in a fucking day. That's what I struggle with, that I'm in this privileged position to discern to what degree do I want to be complicit in my presumably negative impact on the sustainability of Earth and Life. They shouldn't buy it, yes, but this is fundamentally a privilege to even consider.

Gideros time delay